Pentrating Towering Cumulus Clouds

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I had received a preflight briefing. No mention of T Storms or
ice. I was below the freezing level. Now you see, if I had KNOWN what
was going to happen to me BEFORE I went into that cloud, I would not
have done it. But I didn't KNOW ahead of time that I would get ice. I
thought it would just be rain and maybe a little bumpy.

Also, I was on my flight plan. My route took me through the cloud.
Flying through clouds is what IFR flying is all about. I didn't see any
lightning. It was a towering cumulus. I'd never had one of those in my
path before. The preflight briefer said it was "just rain".

If I encountered one of those now, assuming I could see it ahead of
time, I'd request a diversion around it. That decision is based on
experience. My experience made me wiser than I was previous to this
event.

It is possible to be ignorant even though one is intellegent, by the
way. Ignorance means one just does not know, is not informed on the
subject on hand. Not that one is stupid or unable to understand the
subject. And the fact that I was ignorant on this subject does not mean
I was ignorant of the entire subject of weather. I was never told not
to fly into towering cumulus clouds. I was told not to fly into
thunderstorms. I believed and still believe there is a difference.

The whole reason I posted was to share my experience with others. Not
to set myself up for ridicule because of my ignorance. I am sorry you
took it that way.

I have no idea about the depth or breadth of your weather
knowledge, nor your prowess as a pilot, except from what
you yourself stated, and what you yourself said that you did.

You stated that you were 'Pretty ignorant about weather',
and that you flew into a big, dark, TCU. I can only
infer from this that you were 'Pretty ignorant about weather',
and that you had no idea what to expect within a big, dark,
TCU.

My query was merely one of astonishment, and an expression
of a conundrum that one could indeed be 'pretty ignorant'
about weather' and have no idea what to expect within a big,
dark, TCU by the time they're an instrument rated pilot.

But in this there was no ridicule of you, nor impugning of
your intelligence, nor any intent to do so. I am sorry if
you took it that way. I stand corrected.

Ron,

No problem.

Doug

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in message
news:Hfb9e.1074608$8l.983385@pd7tw1no...

Some degree of weather knowledge is
in most places a requirement for the Private licence/certificate,
and, considering what's at stake, I'd think a pilot'd would have
acquired more than the bare minimum knowledge by the time
they've got an IR. Apparently not.


You would think so, wouldn't you.

I find it rather amazing that a certain number of IR pilots seem to look at
their rating as a wand that magically makes IMC something benign... to be
relished and welcomed.

IMC is to be treated like the plague. It contains icing, turbulence,
disorientation. It forces your dependence on electrical and mechanical
devices which, reliable as they may be, are never completely infallible.
The forecaster's ability to predict the precise conditions within the IMC is
way less than that for VMC situations, and especially so for the most
dangerous conditions.

With all that going for it, flight into IMC should always be initiated only
with the greatest of care. Part of that care, you would think, is a rather
complete knowledge of the processes that produce it and that suppress it.
And at least a passing knowledge as to how to recognize them on a weather
chart as part of pre-flight planning....

Fascinating discussion. Someone versed in learning theory could
probably put what seems obvious here - reading about it only imparts
some unverified, unvalidated knowledge. Poking your nose in it
completes the package.

Re-reading the entire post suggests to me that the original poster was
asking for some insight to all the stuff he has read to date. Despite
all the various opinions and guidelines - there is still no definitive
procedure for when one may safely penetrate a Cu and when one should
not. In the end, you have to start poking your nose in a few and
calibrate what you've read. Or you can simply *never* fly in one (at
least not knowingly - see embedded)and limit your flying to visual
reference or stratus-only (is there a rating for that?)

As one poster pointed out, training doesn't require any actual. Without
it, a lot of the weather training leaves one pretty ignorant about a lot
of weather.

Interestingly, this particular thread provides the so-called 'ignorant'
with perhaps more insight than can be gained from any training manual.

Def: "Weather Ignorant" he/she who has yet to poke one's probiscus in
weather that one's common sense had decided to avoid like plague in future.

Ron McKinnon wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, I had received a preflight briefing. No mention of T Storms or
ice. I was below the freezing level. Now you see, if I had KNOWN what
was going to happen to me BEFORE I went into that cloud, I would not
have done it. But I didn't KNOW ahead of time that I would get ice. I
thought it would just be rain and maybe a little bumpy.

Also, I was on my flight plan. My route took me through the cloud.
Flying through clouds is what IFR flying is all about. I didn't see any
lightning. It was a towering cumulus. I'd never had one of those in my
path before. The preflight briefer said it was "just rain".

If I encountered one of those now, assuming I could see it ahead of
time, I'd request a diversion around it. That decision is based on
experience. My experience made me wiser than I was previous to this
event.

It is possible to be ignorant even though one is intellegent, by the
way. Ignorance means one just does not know, is not informed on the
subject on hand. Not that one is stupid or unable to understand the
subject. And the fact that I was ignorant on this subject does not mean
I was ignorant of the entire subject of weather. I was never told not
to fly into towering cumulus clouds. I was told not to fly into
thunderstorms. I believed and still believe there is a difference.

The whole reason I posted was to share my experience with others. Not
to set myself up for ridicule because of my ignorance. I am sorry you
took it that way.


I have no idea about the depth or breadth of your weather
knowledge, nor your prowess as a pilot, except from what
you yourself stated, and what you yourself said that you did.

You stated that you were 'Pretty ignorant about weather',
and that you flew into a big, dark, TCU. I can only
infer from this that you were 'Pretty ignorant about weather',
and that you had no idea what to expect within a big, dark,
TCU.

My query was merely one of astonishment, and an expression
of a conundrum that one could indeed be 'pretty ignorant'
about weather' and have no idea what to expect within a big,
dark, TCU by the time they're an instrument rated pilot.

But in this there was no ridicule of you, nor impugning of
your intelligence, nor any intent to do so. I am sorry if
you took it that way. I stand corrected.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...
Fascinating discussion. Someone versed in learning theory could probably
put what seems obvious here - reading about it only imparts some
unverified, unvalidated knowledge. Poking your nose in it completes the
package.

Re-reading the entire post suggests to me that the original poster was
asking for some insight to all the stuff he has read to date. Despite all
the various opinions and guidelines - there is still no definitive
procedure for when one may safely penetrate a Cu and when one should not.
In the end, you have to start poking your nose in a few and calibrate what
you've read. Or you can simply *never* fly in one (at least not
knowingly - see embedded)and limit your flying to visual reference or
stratus-only (is there a rating for that?)


Part of the issue is whether the pilot has been sufficiently trained in
weather to at least make some judgement calls on his own, as to whether THIS
situation is one in which it is probable the the TCU will rip his wings off,
or will have some mild turbulence and nothing more. In his preplanning,
does he simply read the forecast, (which maybe happened to say nothing about
TCU's or CBs), then when he actually encounters one, how can he judge?

Is it only: The forecaster's said nothing, so it can't be bad.... or does
he make some further mental preparation such as: They were forecasting
really serious CB with severe turbc to the south of here, maybe that area
has moved further north than expected and they are starting to pop and I
should be really careful? OR... This is the only one around and its pretty
small in horizontal dimension, so its probably not too severe in there and
I'll be through it in a hurry.... OR: It looks to be part of a line, so
maybe there is some kind of squall line with extra lift, or maybe that cold
front is moving faster than expected, and so probably its going to be more
severe.... etc.

"Poking your nose in" can be a dangerous thing to do, if you don't really
understand what is happening. "Weather knowledge" is NOT: its a TCU,
somebody told me those have turbulence, lets find out how bad... "Weather
knowledge" is making some educated guess as to the processes at work so that
you can make a reasonable judgement as to what severity to anticipate before
you go in.


Having said all that, if someone is looking for rules of thumb, my
preference would be always to avoid penetration of a cloud of vertical
development, and especially above the freezing level. Those that I would
try to be especially careful of a
.... Dark, and/or of broad horizontal extent. The darkness indicated a huge
water content, and hence something (updrafts) is holding it up... and its
getting ready to come down!
.... Part of a line. Could be a weak front or squall line. Extra lift.
.... built up quickly and/or appears to be building rapidly. Indicates very
strong vertical currents.
.... broad horizontally. Shows strong convective power exists, (and it takes
longer to traverse).
.... in an area where severe thunderstorms were forecast. Self explanatory.


Those that I would be more tempted to traverse:
White throughout, not dark. Not much water.
Narrow. Not in them for long.
Been around for a while and not building. Currents probably weak.
Isolated, in an area where none were forecast. Convective power probably
weak.
Embedded in generally stable cloud. If the whole area is relatively stable,
less likely that smaller embedded areas would be *severely* unstable.

Remember that there is an exception to every rule... of thumb. :-)


....

This particular one was
Tall
Dark
No forecast of T storms
No lightning
Supposed below the freezing level (according to both the forecast and
my temp guage)
Isolated (they were cells, not really a line)
But the kicker for me is
It was easily circumnavigated
No icing airmet, no tstorm airmet

If I had to do it over again, I'd request a 90 degree turn to the right
and a decent. Then turn back to course when it looked better.
But I dunno, there is no black and white here. It is all about how much
risk you want to take. For some, if it's legal, you are good to go. But
for me, make the flight as safe as possible. If there is a reasonable,
safer alternative, take it. Minimize the time spent in the clouds. Go
above them, around them or below them if possible. Fly where the good
weather is. Yes, do a little IMC here and there, but don't push it.

Icebound wrote:

"Poking your nose in" can be a dangerous thing to do, if you don't really
understand what is happening. "Weather knowledge" is NOT: its a TCU,
somebody told me those have turbulence, lets find out how bad... "Weather
knowledge" is making some educated guess as to the processes at work so that
you can make a reasonable judgement as to what severity to anticipate before
you go in.
That's the basic weather knowledge some of us (now) take for granted but
that in fact, takes some training and experience to gain.


Having said all that, if someone is looking for rules of thumb, my
preference would be always to avoid penetration of a cloud of vertical
development, and especially above the freezing level. Those that I would
try to be especially careful of a
... Dark, and/or of broad horizontal extent. The darkness indicated a huge
water content, and hence something (updrafts) is holding it up... and its
getting ready to come down!
... Part of a line. Could be a weak front or squall line. Extra lift.
... built up quickly and/or appears to be building rapidly. Indicates very
strong vertical currents.
... broad horizontally. Shows strong convective power exists, (and it takes
longer to traverse).
... in an area where severe thunderstorms were forecast. Self explanatory.


Those that I would be more tempted to traverse:
White throughout, not dark. Not much water.
Narrow. Not in them for long.
Been around for a while and not building. Currents probably weak.
Isolated, in an area where none were forecast. Convective power probably
weak.
Embedded in generally stable cloud. If the whole area is relatively stable,
less likely that smaller embedded areas would be *severely* unstable.

Remember that there is an exception to every rule... of thumb. :-)

All very good stuff. The question is, "how do you get this information
and get it added to your knowledge bank?" Well, this thread is a good
place with experienced weather pilots giving their best. Reading every
issue of every flying magazine for xx years can help - I did it and it
did. But completing your IFR training I would submit, doesn't do it,
unless one has access to instructors and pilots that can somehow share
their knowledge. Everyone doesn't have that.

I spent over 10 years racing cross country in gliders. Every hour was
spend evaluating *every single cloud* in sight. After evaluating them,
I often flew under them and had a chance to validate what I saw. When I
screwed up, I often found myself on the ground. Along the way I was
rained on many times, landed out many times, sucked up into a TCU where
redline was required to get out, and hit by hail from below. I've
(stupidly) flown underneath a few thunderstorms, been in a microburst,
and landed in the middle of several storms, one notably with lightening
(if the finish line is under one and you made it that far, are you going
to quit and landout or finish? Landout is the answer but I was younger
then and foolish)

After all that, I found I still had a lot learn about actually flying
*in* those same clouds. I knew to stay out anything that looks or
smells like a TCU or thunderstorm. But I wasn't prepared for just how
violent those benign looking pure white Florida afternoon Cu's could be.
Or how terrifying embedded *light* convection can be when you can't
see where it is or really know how strong it might get. Or conversely,
just how comforting Stormscope, or radar, or ol' Cheap ******* can be on
a southern afternoon.

And I had no experience with ice - and though I've been dipped in it a
few times I'm fortunate in that there's so much good writing on the
subject that I've been able to avoid scaring myself so far.

It's hard to gain "weather knowledgeabe" status. And how many people
here are "knowledgeable" and yet not scared themselves in weather they
should have avoided? Or Icebound, how did you come up with that name?

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...

... Or Icebound, how did you come up with that name?

Hee-hee. I just looked at my life:

.... and realized that half the time I scrape it off my windshield, drive on
it, walk on it, even play on it. I used to forecast it, saw its effects on
the hulls of large ships, watched it snap every power pole in my village,
saw it destroy my father's crops.

My boat sits suspended above it for 6 months of the year, waiting for those
few short summer weeks when it can be truly called a "pleasure" craft.

I have flown as a passenger in it, (watching an hour of mysterious
pump-handle activity by the DC3 co-pilot, probably keeping the
leading-edge-boots working???). I have never flown in it as a pilot, (and
freely admit that my opinions come from meteorological, and not aviation,
experience).

Best of all, it cools my gin-and-tonic while I visit aviation newsgroups
where it is a topic of serious discussion.

Hee Hee!

Icebound wrote:

... Or Icebound, how did you come up with that name?


Hee-hee. I just looked at my life:

... and realized that half the time I scrape it off my windshield, drive on
it, walk on it, even play on it. I used to forecast it, saw its effects on
the hulls of large ships, watched it snap every power pole in my village,
saw it destroy my father's crops.

My boat sits suspended above it for 6 months of the year, waiting for those
few short summer weeks when it can be truly called a "pleasure" craft.

I have flown as a passenger in it, (watching an hour of mysterious
pump-handle activity by the DC3 co-pilot, probably keeping the
leading-edge-boots working???). I have never flown in it as a pilot, (and
freely admit that my opinions come from meteorological, and not aviation,
experience).

Best of all, it cools my gin-and-tonic while I visit aviation newsgroups
where it is a topic of serious discussion.

"Icebound" wrote:
... Or Icebound, how did you come up with that name?

Hee-hee. I just looked at my life:

... and realized that half the time I scrape it off my windshield, drive on
it, walk on it, even play on it. I used to forecast it, saw its effects on
the hulls of large ships, watched it snap every power pole in my village,
saw it destroy my father's crops.

My boat sits suspended above it for 6 months of the year, waiting for those
few short summer weeks when it can be truly called a "pleasure" craft.

8^)

Hmmm... Maybe I should call myself "Humiditybound."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM